For those
who have to fly often, know the routine of airport security, and
are looking for opportunities to speed the process, a new service
has begun to expand at US airports. Known as Clear, this service
tested its procedures at Orland’s McCoy Airport before it
recently spread its operations to Albany, Cincinnati, Indianapolis,
Little Rock, Newark, JFK, Reno-Tahoe, San Jose, and Westchester
Airports. The company plans to expand its services next to LaGuardia
Airport in NYC and San Francisco. The purpose of Clear’s
service is to give priority treatment to pre-screened and pre-approved
travelers.
Clear approved passengers bypass the initial line
where a TSA representative checks passports and other identification
against boarding passes to be sure that the traveler and ID match.
The line for initial ID checking can be quite long since it is
made up of all travelers including those who fly quite infrequently
and apt to slow the process by not having the proper documentation
in hand, may be slowing the process “fussing” with
children, and may be overloaded with items that will not fit into
the luggage cage designed to assure oversized items are not brought
on board.
After bypassing the initial security check line,
the Clear approved passenger proceeds to the x-ray equipment where
standard search procedures apply.
Sounds like a wonderful way to speed the security
screening process, doesn’t it? So what does it take to become
a Clear traveler? One needs to fill out a form with information
that will lead to a background check and pay a fee of $99.00 for
a one year membership, which will give the traveler access to
the Clear land at participating airports. The form is available
online and at participating airports. Once the form is completed
and submitted, the applicant needs to go to a participating airport
for fingerprinting and an iris scan which is done by a process
in which the applicant looks into what seems to be a mirror. The
device stores the image of the iris/retina in its database.
Once the background check results are approved,
the passenger is directed to bypass the first security checkpoint
and to use a lane identified for Clear members. The Clear passenger
finds a mirror-like device into which the traveler must look.
The device then matches the “eye print” of the traveler
with information in its database and approves Clear passengers
to move directly to the next phase of security check-in at the
x-ray equipment areas.
In theory, this is a wonderful service for the frequent
traveler. The time-saving aspects of the Clear program, coupled
with the elimination of the hassle of standing in long lines behind
passengers who unaccustomed to procedures and, therefore, create
additional delays, is a serious plus. Additionally, the yearly
fee is the entry key to Clear services in every airport they serve
and all the airports they plan to serve.
If there is a downside, it is intricately woven
into questions of privacy, discrimination, and potential wrongful
identification. Having fingerprints on file, as well as eye prints,
creates a database whose use could be commandeered for reasons
other than fast tracking at airports. While the company emphatically
states that all information is protected and information is secure,
we all know that stories about the private information stored
at the Social Security Administration, in the databases of international
banks credit card systems and major department stores where all
that was considered private ended up in the hands of the unscrupulous.
And, the potential for governmental confiscation is always one
government issued warrant away from happening.
Typically, one would say, “If I haven’t
done anything wrong, what do I have to worry about?’ And
therein lies the rub! It is all too possible, once your fingerprints
and retina prints are stored that they can and will become part
of some investigation, especially because they place the person
at airports which are elements of investigations as they relate
to criminals fleeing city. “And if I’m not associated
with that criminal act, why should I worry?” you ask.
Let me briefly tell you the story of Police Inspector
Shirley McKie of Strathclyde, Scotland. Her story has made a major
change in the way that fingerprint information is used but you’ve
probably never heard her dramatic story because we rarely get
foreign news unless it is literally earthshaking. While she insisted
she was innocent, Inspector Mc Kie was indicated and found guilty
of participating in a robbery because of testimony from four fingerprint
experts at Scotland Yard at her trial who testified that the thumbprint
on the doorway at a burglary site belonged to McKie. This innocent
police officer was incarcerated because of the testimony that
there was a match between her fingerprint and that found at the
scene of the crime. McKie’s ruined family life, professional
life, and social life, took a backseat to the continued fight
to clear her name and terminate her prison sentence. An American
fingerprint expert is credited with having the judgment tossed
out, exonerating McKie and awarding her an amount equivalent to
$1.5 million in compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of
pay. And how was it possible that one fingerprint expert could
introduce evidence to refute the four experts who testified that
it was definitely McKie’s thumbprint? While the prosecution
focused on the many points of the crime scene’s print matching
McKie’s print, they didn’t bother to mention two specific
and unique angular portions of the thumbprint which did not appear
on McKie’s print. Any thinking person could easily see that
her thumb, while have similarity to the crime print in many spots,
was not capable of producing the angular spots which did not appear
on her thumb. Had McKie been an ordinary citizen, her thumbprint
would not have been in the database when the crime scene print
was run through the system and the possibility of wrongful identification
would not have been an issue.
The moral of this story for me is that wrongful
identifications, round-ups of people with certain physical traits,
and other injustices have been known to human history in our recent
past. With complex identification means entered routinely into
a data pool, the possibility of misuse of information cannot be
ignored no matter how secure the system is and no matter how well-meaning
a company may be about protecting privacy of its members. If Scotland
Yard can, with all of its expertise, be confused in the process
of making a simple identification of a thumbprint, it should give
us pause to consider the potential ramifications of entering a
system where a piece of technology will decide whether we can
fly or not. Far too many people are currently on “No Fly”
lists simply because their names are similar to someone who is
considered a danger. Progress always leaves us to ponder whether
we are better or worse off for the steps we take forward.
|
